Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real context beyond them by disclosing the 31-day window constraint and the shape of the result set (titles, departments, PDF/HTML links) in the absence of an output schema. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: purpose, constraints/returns, provenance. Nothing is padded, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. The source URL sentence is borderline but defensible as provenance for an official gazette.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the fields returned. For a 6-parameter, zero-required search tool the coverage is good, though the undocumented bulletins/maxResults defaults and lack of pagination notes leave small gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description reinforces the keyword/section/date-range dimensions plus the 31-day ceiling on the range. It adds nothing about bulletins (default BOE) or maxResults (cap 200), leaving those entirely to the schema, so it neither compensates for nor extends the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource: the daily summaries of Spain's BOE and BORME gazettes. The domain is so specific that it cannot be confused with the funding/tender siblings, and it spells out the gazette acronyms an agent might encounter.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the three filter dimensions (keyword, section, date range) and a hard 31-day cap, which implies how the tool is meant to be driven, but it never says when to prefer it over another source or what happens when the range exceeds the limit. Usage is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about source, sorted-by-deadline ordering, and covered programmes, but does not describe rate limits, authentication, pagination, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted wording. The programme examples and source note earn their place by clarifying coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, open-world search tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives adequate domain context. However, it is incomplete for guiding correct use: it omits parameter semantics, alternative tools, and any practical search constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions open/forthcoming statuses implicitly but says nothing about the keywords or maxResults parameters, leaving significant gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search open/forthcoming calls on the EU Funding & Tenders Portal') and lists relevant EU programmes, making the domain clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_ted_tenders or search_boe_borme, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states what can be searched but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that – sort order ('Newest first') and the ISO-3 country convention (e.g. ESP, DEU) – but says nothing about result caps, pagination, default maxResults, or match semantics for keywords.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the filter list is grouped efficiently and the sort behavior is appended as a tight clause. Only minor gains would come from briefer phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter search with no output schema and no required parameters, the description covers the filter surface but leaves notable gaps: the default/limit behavior of maxResults, what a result record contains, and how results are paginated. Annotations cover safety, but the return-side completeness is thin.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just 'ISO 3166-1 alpha-3' on countries), so the description carries real compensating weight: it maps keywords, countries, CPV code and publication date to their filter meanings and supplies the ISO-3 example. It still omits the maxResults parameter entirely and gives no CPV/date format or multi-value combination semantics, so the compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names a specific verb (Search) and resource (public procurement notices on TED / Tenders Electronic Daily) and lists the filter fields, which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search tools (search_boe_borme, search_eu_funding), leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the source name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Because two siblings are also 'search_*' tools over adjacent data (Spanish BOE/BORME, EU funding), an agent gets no help deciding which source to query for a given need.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.